lemonade_wait_for_day_end

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action and return value but omits side effects such as irreversibility, blocking behavior, or what 'advance' means for the running day. For a state-mutating tool, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, action-first, with no redundant wording. Each sentence contributes core information: what the tool does and how to choose among modes.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the primary action and mode distinction, but lacks context around what constitutes a 'running day', when to use this vs siblings, and the timeout parameter. With no output schema, the return format is also unspecified, making the description adequate but not complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the mode enum values ('skip for benchmarks, fast or realtime for visible observation'), but timeout_ms is not mentioned at all, leaving its purpose and units undefined. The compensation is partial at best.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Advance' with a clear resource 'a running day' and outcome 'return the next decision state'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings such as run_day or observe, which focus on different phases of the simulation lifecycle.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use each mode ('skip for benchmarks, fast or realtime for visible observation'), which is helpful. However, it does not directly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like run_day or get_day_results, leaving tool-selection context implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.